Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33432984›Full record

ReviewInternational journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care2021

Human factors/ergonomics work system analysis of patient work: state of the science and future directions.

Nicole E Werner, Siddarth Ponnala, Nadia Doutcheva, Richard J Holden

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Exploring Patient and Caregiver Work and Continuity of Care During Hospital-to-Home Transitions of Care in the Canadian Context.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Human factors and ergonomics methods for pharmacy research and clinical practice.Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP · 2021
    Review
  20. SEIPS 101 and seven simple SEIPS tools.BMJ quality & safety · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Nicole E WernerChildren's Hospital of Philadelphia.
Siddarth PonnalaDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Nadia DoutchevaDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Richard J HoldenIndiana University School of Medicine.

Funding

University of Wisconsin Institute for Clinical and Translational ResearchUL1TR002373 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI ELIZABETH S BURNSIDE, Allan R. Brasier · 2017 to 2026
$75.9M
Institutional Career Development CoreKL2TR002374 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Bo Liu, Marin Leigh Schweizer · 2017 to 2026
$9.7M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR002374NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002373
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo demonstrate the use and value of the Human Factors/Ergonomics-based Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) family of work system models for studying and improving patient work. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a review of the published empirical literature applying the SEIPS family of work system models for patient work. STUDY SELECTION: Included studies had to apply one of the SEIPS family of work system models to study patient work; be published in a peer-reviewed journal in English and include analysis of data. We identified 16 articles that met our inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: For each study, we extracted settings and situations in which models were applied; research design; study methods; model(s) used; type and number of study participants; study objective(s); whether the study included an intervention; specific aspects of the model used; knowledge generated about patient work and benefits of using the models. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Our analysis revealed that a majority of studies were conducted in the United States, used qualitative or mixed methods and employed a variety of data collection techniques to study adult patient populations with chronic illness and their informal caregivers and healthcare providers performing patient work in the home and clinical setting. The studies resulted in a variety of useful products, demonstrating several benefits of using the models.

conclusionOur review has demonstrated the value of using the SEIPS family of work systems models to study and improve patient and family contributions to health-related work.

Indexed as

ErgonomicsPatient SafetyAdultCaregiversChronic DiseaseHumansergonomicshuman factorspatient worksociotechnical systemwork system

Identifiers

PMID33432984
PMCPMC7802067

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.